Although as a traditional conservative I cannot vote for Mr. Obama, I also cannot vote for Mr. Cain or Ms. Bachmann. I am voting for Ron Paul, and would be open to voting for Mr. Huntsman if he got the Republican nomination. I can swallow hard and vote for neoconservative warmongers such as Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum, but I will not vote for a candidate who supports waterboarding. Mr. Can and Ms. Bachmann explicitly said that they would reinstate waterboarding, which is, despite their denials, a form of torture. Mr. Perry hinted that he could support waterboarding, and that adds another reason I could not vote for him. Torture is objectively morally evil, and for candidates to claim Christian identity while supporting a crass utilitarianism that would countenance torture reveals their hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of their “Christian” supporters who also support waterboarding and other forms of torture. I am not so naive so as to believe that the United States has not used torture in the past, but torture has not been a part of official U. S. policy–at least it wasn’t until the administration of George W. Bush. Even Mr. Obama has only added window dressing in limiting torture, letting other countries do the dirty work. To support torture or to deny that waterboarding constitutes torture reveals a major character flaw that is incompatible with a person being president of the United States. Even if we could obtain actionable intelligence from waterboarding, which is doubtful to the point of being practically impossible, this would not morally justify the practice. Mr. Cain and Ms. Bachmann (and perhaps Mr. Perry) find themselves supporting an evil practice that strips human beings of their dignity, a dignity presupposed in the Geneva Conventions. If an open supporter of torture receives the Republican nomination, I will vote for a third party candidate. Critics of Mr. Obama might say that any Republican would be better than him, but a Republican who states that he or she would reinstate waterboarding would not be better than Mr. Obama.

The problem is that both major parties have been purchased by warmongers, to the point that critics of war and or torture such as Mr. Paul, receive limited air time in a lengthy debate. Mr. Paul only received ninety seconds of air time in last night’s debate. That is a travesty that reflects the extent to which the military-industrial complex has captured the U. S. media. The fact that so-called Christians criticize Mr. Paul for opposing torture in all forms and for opposing unnecessary wars reveals the so-called “Christian right” to be neither Christian nor truly right wing. The traditional right would neither have supported torture no engaging in unnecessary wars. The Cold War was the beginning of the fall of the right into warmongering. Afraid of Communist world domination, which could not have happened given the inevitable inefficiency of Communism, the American right supported the major U. S. military buildup of the 1950s. Southerners, who should know better after the War between the States, strongly supported this warmongering policy, as did the leaders of the Christian right in the 1970s and 80s. When the U.S. engaged in torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, these same groups supported the U.S. practice of torture. There are a few people on both the right and on the left who oppose torture. They should work together to change U. S. policy to the point that it cannot engage in torture anywhere and at any time. If they fail, the United States will pay by losing support in the world community–and by losing its soul.

With all due respect, sir, I am wondering why you, as a “traditional Conservative” and a Christian, cannot vote for President Obama. Can you enumerate, then ponder and explore the reasons and the alternatives? The Democratic party, like all earthly institutions, is flawed, but it has been and will remain the party of progress toward the ideal of equal rights and justice. The Republicans, in recent years, have stood for warmongering and greed. Congressional Republicans continue to vote on behalf of a tiny minority of wealthy people. Ron Paul may be in many ways an excellent man, but he believes, wrongly, that we can maintain an infrastructure and defend our borders without income taxes. He apparently thinks that public education can be managed and run by the states, meaning that he essentially doesn’t care whether public schools continue to exist. Can you defend your decision to support policies that will promote further declines in public education and in literacy?
Can you defend further attacks on the dignified and noble profession of teaching in publicly funded schools? I can’t, because I work within that system and I see that, despite their many flaws, public schools and low-cost community colleges continue to deliver education to the masses, and do so in a society that is increasingly hostile to the enterprise of learning. Finally, after you have fully examined the alternatives, can you waste your vote on a campaign that is doomed? Does your belief in Jesus Christ, who preached a Sermon on the Mount to the masses,not call to you to take action that is both effective and truly idealistic?

I will not vote for a candidate who supports abortion to the point that he opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. To me, the mass murder of 1.3 million unborn a year precludes my supporting any Democratic candidate who continues to support this evil act. Plus, as a Jeffersonian, I believe that Roe v. Wade illegitimately interfered with the rights of the states.

As far as welfare, there is more than one method of providing social welfare. In the nineteenth century, Evangelical Christians did much valuable work in the fledgling cities that were experiencing high rates of poverty and alcoholism. Federal social welfare has created a permanent class of dependents. Clinton did the right thing with welfare reform, but Obama has been doing his best to roll back Clinton’s reforms. At least Clinton restrained the growth of the federal government, unlike Bush II and Obama. As for public schools, education departments have created a group of teachers more interested in social reform than in teaching the basics. No amount of money will solve the problems of a lack of discipline in the schools and a lack of basic knowledge among school teachers. I was lucky to be in public schools before the poison of relativism and “self-esteem” infected the system. I would abolish all education departments at colleges and universities, require K-6 teachers to get a sound liberal arts education, then put them under a mentor for two years to learn methods of teaching. Those in higher grades would get a degree in the specific subject they will teach. I would cut down the administration that drains money from the school system and keeps teachers from teaching due to silly policies–“continuous quality improvement” is the latest bs from the educational establishment, and it has infected universities through accrediting agencies. What it means in practice is meaningless paperwork, change for the sake of change, and less time to teach. I would also legally protect teachers who discipline their students. A child cannot learn effectively in an atmosphere of violence and intimidation. More money in the system will be wasted until administration is cut back and teachers get the benefits–the educational establishment should clean up its own act before demanding more cash.

The more locally welfare is provided, the better it works, for people at the local level know the needs of the less fortunate best. I would focus on helping people at that level first before building up an already bloated federal bureaucracy.

Obama is every bit as good of friend to Wall Street as was Bush II. I have talked to people, even more liberal than you, who agree. I would prefer small, community based businesses to be the groundwork of business in the U.S. rather than large multinational corporations that outsource American jobs. Tax policy could help some, but I think we’ll end up with the state corporatism of China (rather than Swedish-style socialism).

Where are you going to get the money? The 1% richest people in the U.S. pay 40% of the taxes. The deficit is so large that taxing everyone who makes over 100,000 dollars a year will only make a small dent in it. China will not loan us money forever. Massive cuts in defense are essential, but even that will leave a large deficit. Tax increases will only close the gap a small amount. So the only way to deal with the deficit is to cut some domestic programs. The trouble with liberals is that (1) they are utopians, (2) they falsely assume that human beings are unfallen, and (3) they deny the limits that reality places on people, institutions, and governments.

I had thought, that since you wrote a reasonably intelligent essay about my late father, you might have the ability to consider your position in a full and thoughtful manner–without the kinds of sweeping generalities that you make in your attack on teachers. To take just one example: How do you know that all teachers, most teachers, or some significant number of them lack what you call “basic knowledge”? How do you define either “basic” or “knowledge”? How do you know that all teachers, most teachers or any significant number of them favor the promotion of self-esteem over discipline? Who will be in charge of determining whether they have sufficient “basic knowledge”–you? Some yokel in some statehouse?

Indeed, I witnessed, close up, the kinds of people who are attracted to degree programs in education when I was an undergraduate getting a very solid liberal arts education at an institution that happened to focus on teacher training. Indeed, people who can stand the drudgery of getting an education degree are not the brightest lights on the string, Programs have been put in place to address this–but they are not going to be paid for without an influx of money from both the states and the federal government. More importantly, those with the intelligence to get a solid liberal arts education are not going to take jobs that require long, uncompensated hours of preparation, jobs constantly threatened by state budget cuts enacted by so-called “conservatives.”

You have written about my late father, Dr. Richard G. Nilges. He was an intelligent, widely read, intellectually sophisticated conservative. He would be appalled if he could read this. For one thing, he knew that conservativism requires dedication to preserving the traditions of the past–and he would have been disgusted by the notion that education is really for those who can afford private schools.

My father knew history and he knew particularly well the history of class warfare in Europe, warfare fueled by the educational and economic inequality that you and your ilk would like to see installed on our shores–the strife and injustice that his ancestors came here to escape.

Obama, like many in government, like many religious leaders and like many Catholics, believes in personal choice and the exercise of conscience, and upholds the separation of church
and state. Should tax money be used in any way to pay for abortion or to inform women of their alternatives in the matter? Yes it should, because this is not a Catholic country or what you would call a Christian country. This is a diverse country made up of people of widely varying opinions.

If you believe that life begins at conception, you are welcome to your belief. And that is all that it is–a certain stance on a complex, unresolved philosophical and religious question, which is, in your case, based on a faith assumption that an embryo is “ensouled” at creation. That’s a lovely idea, and you are entitled to hold it.

My father had five children. Of these, at least two are flaming liberals and two are probably moderately liberal. How did this happen? It came about because my father believed with his last, dying breath in the dignity of all human beings. He upheld and respected our religious choices. He loved the fine arts and instilled the love of them in his children. He made sure that our home was full of books and full of music. He believed in education and more importantly, in learning. I think he was happier on the day that I received a master’s in English than he was when he received his M.D. He was thrilled when I began to teach.

He knew that teaching, like medicine, is an impossible profession, one with goals that are impossible to fulfill, goals that dedicated and idealistic people will continue to try to achieve.

He believed in, and loved these enterprises because he knew that they embody the highest ends that human beings can achieve.

May you, on the basis of your beliefs, come to support and cherish babies and programs that benefit babies, who will become youngsters–like universal health care for children and free, quality public education for every precious child born in this country. May you look outward from the boundaries of this nation at infants born oversees and may you proudly uphold and support American aid programs and an American, humanitarian stance that benefits babies and their parents.

Waterboarding is torture. I am a Christian. I am also for waterboarding. It does no PERMANENT HARM to a captive and has produced more intelligence than simply asking nicely.

I know something about waterboarding as I have been “close” to being in the military and “close” to working for the government in areas that I might encounter such terms and activities.

It does not permanently harm the captive. It doesn’t cripple them or cause permanent physical harm, therefore it is a GREAT way of deriving information from a satanic islamic terrorist captive.

In War people shoot people with bullets and KILL them. With waterboarding, no one is dying, no one is even being hurt very bad. They are being frightened. They “think” they will suffocate but they won’t.

How can one be for war under any circumstance where we release chemical weapons, shrapnel weapons, bullets, etc.. that tear people to pieces and kill them, destroy families bomb children (unavoidably) but be against such innocuous activities as waterboarding that has a good chance of AVOIDING some of the killing that we are supposed to abhor.

So, I SUPPORT STRONGLY any candidate that sees that giving a person a meal is nice but teaching them how to farm and get their own meals is better. I also support a candidate that fights wars to defend the country, but I also support even more a candidate that can take a deadly enemy, shake him up a bit through waterboarding and through intelligence gathered through such interrogations… avoid that same bloodshed…

as far as Obama… and the person who thinks that a Christian can support him… anyone who votes for a man who LIKES the fact that abortion is legal and on demand AND thinks that Tax dollars should pay for it… and still wants Obama in office and still consider him/herself a Christian is simply and ridiculously deluded.

Obama believes:

1) that no matter what you do to EARN your money, the government should have a greater right to it to tax you to where there is NO reward for your hardwork and then take that money and give it to people who do not want to work, who want to sit at home and BREED in order to get a larger government Check!

2) Obama doesn’t believe in the 2nd amendment and as a constitutional attorney interprets the constitution through the eyes of a communist.

3) his wife demonstrated their mindset about this country by saying “for the first time, I am proud of my country”!! HOw pathetic.

5) is a blithering idiot when it comes to foreign policy, when elected went on a world wide “apology” tour apologizing for the United States for simply BEING the United States, bowed to foreign kings of a sandbox.

6) overthrew the soveriegn govt. of another country (libya) without cause or provocation. the people who took over are the same islamic fundamentalists that took over in egypt and the other countries. He put the very people in power who applauded september 11th world trade center bombing and would do it again. He turned his back on our allies and extends his hand to our enemies which is slapped back in his face.

Obama is a bumbling idiot. He complained during the election that George W. Bush had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and he called it “out of control. So the idiot gets into office and QUADRUPLES what he called “out of control” spending!!! what a monstrous hypocrite.

One problem I have with social democrats (those who believe that the state is the primary provider of social welfare) is their almost religious-like devotion to their cause, as if social democratic liberalism were a substitute for faith. Thus, it does not matter if I agree with their views on a particular issue (such as waterboarding, which I utterly oppose) on a post, not agreeing with them 100% sometimes provokes the kind of vicious response I also receive from Fundamentalist Christians. I find such behavior, as Mr. Spock says, “fascinating.”

Now, for specifics:

I do not oppose public schools but believe they should teach basic skills instead of social engineering.

I do not believe that all education programs are poor, but I do believe most of them are–and there is a bulk of literature out there that agrees with me. There are always exceptions–NC State, for example, has a fine program in critical thinking in their Education Department. If some programs encourage a solid liberal arts education, more power to them. I would be willing to bet that such programs are the exception rather than the rule.

I do not believe that all teachers are academically challenged. I have had good students who were education majors, but they made fun of their education courses. Increased pay will not make up for programs based on watered down social science.

Public education needs to be reformed at the level of removing excessive administration–if most of the middle and upper managers are fired and their positions not replaced, there will be a lot more money available to pay teachers.

Public education administrators need to back up teachers who discipline students and maintain order in class.

On the welfare state: the principle of subsidiarity says that the more local solutions should be tried first, and only then should solutions at a higher level be tried. In other words, the federal government should be the last resort, not the first resort, for delivering social welfare.

Both defense and domestic spending must be cut deeply to avoid an economic meltdown. I wonder if some social democrats would prefer an economic meltdown so people will be “more equal”–that is, “all equally poor.” I hope they are not that envious and realize that it is in everyone’s best interest, both rich, middle class, and poor–to bring federal spending under control. In any economic breakdown, the poor will suffer the most, so it behooves the government to downsize for the good of all.

Speaking of fallacies–there is a fallacy called the Straw Man fallacy (excuse me, I will not –be so utterly ignorant so as to use the term “Straw Person”). This involves weakening an opponent’s true position to make it easier to knock down. It is a favorite tactic of both sides of the political spectrum, but I have seen the fallacy used more by social democratic liberals when they attack my views. Perhaps there is some fear of being wrong on their part that is the source of Straw Man fallacies.